I appreciate that one should never, ever glance below the comments line on Youtube, and sometimes it seems the comments are entirely divided between very vocal Christians and 12 year olds who can't capitalise or complete a sentence without impugning someone's sexual habits (not necessarily mutually exclusive groups) but somehow managed to get embroiled in an extended multi-person brawl with a very sad and angry man.

It seemed that as a child, his father had beaten him to keep him from the "sin of homosexuality", and he claimed he would beat his own children to do the same. I took issue with him over his belief that "natural law" determined only heterosexual sex was okay (pointing out that homosexuality is common in nature). At which point, he claimed that natural law only applied to animals with moral reasoning - so only to humans. To which I responded that this makes "natural law" a barren and meaningless phrase, since morality is a human construction with no reference to any other part of nature. If you want to construct your own moral code, that is one thing, but I do not think it should be legitimised with the term "natural".

I was rather limited in length of response, given the forum, and made rather more angry than usual by the guy's aggression and crude homophobia. In particular, I thought the comment I have quoted above was some of the most cynically mendacious bollocks I've ever heard.

I don't do well with arguments - I tend to get upset. But I also find it sad to think of the world this man lives in. His faith seems to be primarily about judgement - and the way he seems to think about humanity very cold and negative. Various other Christians were weighing in and disputing his comments about sexuality and scripture, which was heartening, but the whole argument fed rather specifically into my original reasons for leaving the church, and it bothered me.

[EDIT - I've just realised this probably doesn't meet the criteria for a "real life" debate. Damn. May I still post it for highlighting gratuitously tasteless illogic, and I will do better next time?]

I dislike it when people describe certain animal behaviour as (born that way) homosexuality and then try to equate it to human homosexuality.

It demeans the amorous, committed homosexuality of humans - who are not simply copulating out of boredom or stroking/grooming the genitalia of a fellow member of their species for social hierarchy gains, or ignorantly experimenting and mimicking heterosexual behaviour for practice, etc. as animals do.

Now, if the ''appeal to nature'' argument for a wide, universal definition of homosexuality that encompasses any behaviour which merely looks like homosexuality IS to accepted, then in that case, heterosexual male prison in-mates who copulate or masturbate with other males are, by definition, equally homosexuals. And bi-sexuals are also, therefore, simply occasional/intermittent homosexuals. Not born that way at all.

(11-02-2013 07:33 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: It demeans the amorous, committed homosexuality of humans - who are not simply copulating out of boredom or stroking/grooming the genitalia of a fellow member of their species for social hierarchy gains, or ignorantly experimenting and mimicking heterosexual behaviour for practice, etc. as animals do.

So the concept that two people of the same sex might actually LOVE EACH OTHER and want to share INTIMACY with one another to strengthen that relationship is absolutely lost on you. Love is good, and life is too short to be worried about what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Grow the fuck up...

(12-02-2013 01:05 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: Can you read ?
I said...
It demeans the amorous, committed homosexuality of humans - who are not...

Sorry but your posts are worded so ass backwards, that when combined with your propensity of talking out of your ass like a royal bellend, it is hard to determine when you're not being a trite asshole.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

It worries me when it seems the LGBT movement still trying to "explain themselves" to the church. It gives too much credit to the church or religion as a whole when anyone, no matter what they are doing, are forced to equate something they are doing with nature in order to appease the church's adherence to an ideal.

Whether anyone's sexual preference is natural or a choice (also natural in my estimation) shouldn't be dictated by the church.

Sometimes it just seems the church has them backed into a corner and on the defense.